Bomber decision expected in August

Air Force officials said that the LRS-B program is on track for an award in August, but could slip into September. The concern is getting it right, rather than quick and the decision could be made to slip a few weeks to allow for the most thorough process possible.

The U.S. Air Force still aims to award a long-awaited contract for a new long-range strike bomber in August, but the decision could slip into September, Air Force Secretary Deborah James said Wednesday, adding it was crucial to "do it right."

Northrop Grumman Corp, maker of the B-2 bomber, is competing against team made up of Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp for a contract that could be worth $50 billion to $80 billion to the winning bidder.

"The main thing is to do it right," James told Reuters in an interview. "We don't want to drag our feet but we don't want to rush because if you rush, you might not get it right."

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

G,day Zapper
i am looking forward to seeing the outcome of this one
the aussie riff-raaf er raaf could do with a bit of force projection instead of verbal BS projection
alas we will prob not get involved stuff it
Will send a u2u

a reply to: Zaphod58

The two teams are competing to build 80 to 100 new bombers for the Air Force at cost of no more than $550 million per aircraft, one of few new large-scale aircraft programs to kick off in recent years.

I was going to post this, but knew it would appear eventually.

Initial math...

100 new bombers at 550 million equals 55 trillion. Yikes!!!

I took the high road because we all know it'll end up costing more in the long run. Lockheed's got enough going for them and are starting to monopolize the air defense industry. I know Raytheon takes the cake, but that includes munitions. What is your projection in cost over the duration of the program? Am I just talking out my arse or are these numbers real? Unless I'm mistaken, it makes the F35 program look like small potatoes.

a reply to: eisegesis

It will probably end up being a lot less than 100. The first numbers they give are always boosted and then they will cut the order to 75, 50 or even less.

a reply to: eisegesis

Correction- $55 billion, not trillion.

The Air Force wants to pay not a penny more than $550m per aircraft. They are moving to new fixed price contracts where any additional expenses are paid by the contractors themselves, not by the government.

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: eisegesis

Correction- $55 billion, not trillion.

The Air Force wants to pay not a penny more than $550m per aircraft. They are moving to new fixed price contracts where any additional expenses are paid by the contractors themselves, not by the government.

Wow, if knee jerk math didn't exist, I just invented it!

Apologies to all. I should have kept my mouth shut. Thanks for cordially correcting my drunken math.

Totally ashamed...

Sorry Zaph, now I understand the lack of response.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm sure the Chinese hackers and spies will know before us but I look forward to the choice and new tech to drool over!

Do we get to see pics of mockups or artistic impressions or any other sort of eye candy.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

When they announce it maybe. Before the end of the year almost certainly.

Its time to start the pronostic on it, I put fifty $ on Northrop

a reply to: justwanttofly

Never thought I would live to see the day of the air force trying to cap costs.

Now if Congress would fix the other end with suppliers of parts to Boeing Lockheed etc jacking prices up when the contract is given it would be a lovely thing.

Air Force: Next-gen bomber award could slip into fall by Defense News, three more month ?? PFFFF so long awaiting, not expect in Summer but by the end of year

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought we already had some grainy pics of it in this forum.

or no?

a reply to: grey580

I don't think that's a photo of the lrs-b.

I'm interested though as to what its final plane form will be. Also curious as to what the public opinion will be once they see the new bird. Will it all be comments of "stupid govt spending money again" or will it really grab the public's eye and stir some renewed enthusiasm for aviation like the b2 did. im hoping more will be proud of the plane than against it.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think people will tend to evaluate if it is a worthy successor to the great B-52, a 21st century B-52.

a reply to: eisegesis
100 new bombers at 550 million equals 55 trillion. Yikes!!!


55 billion. The cost will be high over the program, but ongoing cost is usually people. There were people maintaining bombers before, and they will switch from B-52 and B-1 to LRS-B.

US GDP is ~15 trillion per year.

a reply to: grey580
Its a B-2 picture for sure.

originally posted by: pronto
a reply to: Zaphod58

G,day Zapper
i am looking forward to seeing the outcome of this one
the aussie riff-raaf er raaf could do with a bit of force projection instead of verbal BS projection
alas we will prob not get involved stuff it
Will send a u2u

Im in Adelaide - I dont think the Australians go for Long Range Strike Bombers, we are a Defence Force primarily, an pacific/indian ocean disaster relief effort secondly and Maritime and expeditionary forces to support our allies. Tactical Bombers are the toys of the super powers, Australia doesnt even have overseas territories to defend (although I know they rotate in PNG) we are not going to bomb the crap out of anyone.

Which is why I have no idea they why they bought into the F-35 (unless they are great Anti Surface Warfare aircraft) although they are doing some manufacturing for it, they have no need for a first strike aircraft except for willy waving in the UN it has no perceived need for home defence IMO - a bit like Canadas dilemma.

A country the size of Aus should have 2 engine aircraft all the way - they should have gone for Typhoon imo or beefed up the numbers of Super Hornets. I dont know why they need Growlers either unless these too are good Anti Surface Warfare.

Seem to have some odd defence spending habits in Australia - except for buying the P-8 which I think is fantastic!

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: eisegesis

Correction- $55 billion, not trillion.

The Air Force wants to pay not a penny more than $550m per aircraft. They are moving to new fixed price contracts where any additional expenses are paid by the contractors themselves, not by the government.

Yep, that's how a fixed price contract works. However, it's only a fixed price at a fixed scope/requirement and specification. I am willing to bet that the scope will creep and the cost will increase. At the end of the day, the people negotiating the deal on behalf of the contractor will always be smarter than the government procurement staff!

Cheers
Robbie

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: eisegesis

Correction- $55 billion, not trillion.

The Air Force wants to pay not a penny more than $550m per aircraft. They are moving to new fixed price contracts where any additional expenses are paid by the contractors themselves, not by the government.

well its 550 million in then dollars. Now it's over 600 million each with inflation. And that number doesn't include r&d. Just the cost of the bomber being built at that time. And I do believe they will stick to the numbers they are asking for. It's the f35 I don't think that will make it to 2400 jets...

I'll take that 50 bucks against NG..